The Scam of the MBTI Trance

[garbage]

So...why don't we stop talking about the original, as exact functional order is clearly ridiculous? Let's move on to something useful and discuss MBTI as four independent variables.

This exactly

Most of those who use MBTI only very rarely get into function order, and there's a reason for that.

 

[Splittet]

If MBTI is a slightly simplified version of the Big 5, it probably still has uses...assuming this is true, it would just be a little bit less useful than the Big 5.

My psychology course didn't cover the Big 5, but it did cover MBTI, and it didn't say a single word about Jungian functions. It seems, perhaps, that academia has adopted an alternative version of MBTI that is not faithful to the original.

So...why don't we stop talking about the original, as exact functional order is clearly ridiculous? Let's move on to something useful and discuss MBTI as four independent variables.

Then your psychology course must have been laughable. MBTI is just as much a part of mainstream psychology as psychoanalysis, ergo not a part of... By the way, neuroticism is a highly important trait, so using MBTI over Big Five is not exactly recommended. Extroversion and neuroticism are often called the Big Two, and are perhaps the two most important traits. I say that because there are a lot of less comprehensive psychological theories who have similar concepts, like Eysenck, reinforcement sensitivity theory, Cloninger's Tridimensional Personality Model, Higgins and his Theory of Regulatory Focus. Extroversion is connected to positive emotions, neuroticism to negative.

 

[simulatedworld]

Usage of X, no matter how long, is irrelevant to the validity or reliability of X.


You don't want to know where I went to college.
It would make your education look like something you'd buy in K-mart.
Where anyone went to college is irrelevant to this discussion. Period.



I don't care if he holds a doctorate in Cunnilingus.
It has no bearing on the validity of MBTI.



Irrelevant.



There's nothing "interesting" in your entire post.
You have no direct evidence; no corroborative evidence.
Ergo, you don't have shit.

It was a direct response to Victor's use of appeals to authority as a means of discrediting this approach. See his signature: the point you *should* have gotten from this exchange is that even among people educated in psychology, there's debate about the usefulness of MBTI. I meant to illustrate that Victor's signature doesn't really prove much, when viewed in context.

If you'd bother looking at the broader context of anything, ever, you'd probably have noticed that.

MBTI's use as a perspective for inductive behavioral prediction has directly improved my understanding of the interactions in the world around me.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you're an ESTJ.

I know this may be difficult for you, but try to consider that I'm looking at your type as a range of different possibilities. I don't need to place it into "definitely yes" or "definitely no" with precise specifics before I use inductive reasoning to gain predictive value from it, see?

No, I'm sure you don't, but continue demonstrating your one-dimensional thinking 'til your heart's content.

Though I'm sure with your undoubtedly Ivy League education, you've already learned this concept and applied it toward raking in millions in Vegas, right? Since you're so good at inductive reasoning?

I expect a majority of the audience can see exactly what I'm talking about with you.

This forum is heavily populated by actual iNtuitives, after all.

 

[Totenkindly]

This exactly. Most of those who use MBTI only very rarely get into function order, and there's a reason for that.

I'll discuss function order a bit and I can articulate what the "theory says," but it seems to me that 1, 2, and 4 are the only really relevant ones (because we're really talking about the "main personality" = 1st + 2nd, and then the shadow function of 1 = 4th). The theory is already just theory to begin with; and as soon as people try to assign roles to functions beyond those (such as trying to call 6th position the Trickster), it seems to just be very arbitrary and prone to the Forer effect.

Socionics has even less agreement within its ranks over how functions should be ordered.

Where anyone went to college is irrelevant to this discussion. Period.

I don't care if he holds a doctorate in Cunnilingus.
It has no bearing on the validity of MBTI.

Irrelevant.

There's nothing "interesting" in your entire post.
You have no direct evidence; no corroborative evidence.
Ergo, you don't have shit.

If you'd bother looking at the broader context of anything, ever, you'd probably have noticed that.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you're an ESTJ.

I know this may be difficult for you, but try to consider that I'm looking at your type as a range of different possibilities.

No, I'm sure you don't, but continue demonstrating your one-dimensional thinking 'til your heart's content. Though I'm sure with your undoubtedly Ivy League education, you've already learned this concept and applied it toward raking in millions in Vegas, right? Since you're so good at inductive reasoning?

I expect a majority of the audience can see exactly what I'm talking about with you.

Oh good grief. Take it outside.

 

[Little Linguist]

People, seriously, it's only a tool, like any other.

Just like you can't use a hammer, a wrench, or any other tool to fix everything, you can't use MBTI as a fix-all either.

Use your brains....

If you use it excessively, it will only result in crap.

Used properly, it can be very enlightening along a path of self-discovery and self-improvement.

 

[Splittet]

People, seriously, it's only a tool, like any other.

Just like you can't use a hammer, a wrench, or any other tool to fix everything, you can't use MBTI as a fix-all either.

Use your brains....

If you use it excessively, it will only result in crap.

Used properly, it can be very enlightening along a path of self-discovery and self-improvement.

It's not just a tool, it's supposed to be science, and it's clearly not very good science.

 

[Edgar]

It's not just a tool, it's supposed to be science, and it's clearly not very good science.

What do you mean by "it's supposed to be science"?

 

[Jaguar]

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you're an ESTJ.

You still don't understand Te.

If I were you, I'd stick to basket-weaving.
Typology is not your forte.

F/D Preference-Order Indicator

T=16
N=11
F=5
S=5

 

[simulatedworld]

It's not just a tool, it's supposed to be science, and it's clearly not very good science.

No, it's not supposed to be a science. Who ever said that it was?

Typology isn't objective! It's akin to sitting around discussing what subgenre of music our favorite bands are. There are generally accepted archetypes, but where a real person fits is highly up to interpretation.

Just as with music, where organizing by genre helps us to understand and conceptualize the relationships between genres more effectively, we use typology as an arbitrary form of categorization.

I can't give you precise definitions of exactly what qualifies as "rock" or "R&B", but there are still quasi-objective statements that can be made regarding the summary of popular opinion.

If I say that The Beatles were a metal band, *technically* you can't prove me wrong with hard empirical measurements, because music, much like typology, is ultimately subjective.

No, nobody with half a brain thinks it's a fucking science, so stop shooting that down and pretending you've accomplished something.

You still don't understand Te.

That's quite possible. My deficiency in Te is matched only by yours in Ne and Ti.

 

[Jaguar]

Quotes from 2 members in the INTJ forum:

" Maybe this is why Ti often thinks Te/Ni is full of shit. "

"And why Te thinks Ne/Ti is spinning it's wheels or chasing its tail. "

 

[Splittet]

You are maybe of the opinion that psychology is not a science? MBTI is a personality psychology theory, and can be evaluated by scientific standards, and it doesn't fare very well.

 

[Nonsensical]

I feel like MBTI makes us more judgemental. We expect people to be certain ways because we have casually typed them out it our heads. MBTI has kind of replaced the perception that I use to intuit other's personalities; it's all I can think about. I think about it too much, it really is a trance. I wonder, on the other hand, what some negative aspects of not knowing about MBTI might be..who knows, the pros and cons might be equal.

 

[Mole]

It of course only becomes a scam if you pay for the test, and there's no real need for that IMO; there's such a wealth of free knowledge on the internet about the system (and a huge amount of free tests as a low-entry point) that anyone can become an authority on it if they have enough interest. I do draw the line at paying for a test, though. Seems like a waste of money to me.

The best way to invalidate any psychological test is to apply it to yourself.

Once you apply any psychological test, including a personality test, to yourself, it becomes subjective and so cannot produce objective results.

 

[Jaguar]

I feel like MBTI makes us more judgemental. We expect people to be certain ways because we have casually typed them out it our heads. MBTI has kind of replaced the perception that I use to intuit other's personalities; it's all I can think about. I think about it too much, it really is a trance. I wonder, on the other hand, what some negative aspects of not knowing about MBTI might be..who knows, the pros and cons might be equal.

Don't let Victor see your post. You just made his point. Lol.

Like yourself, I have always used my intuition to read people.
It has never let me down.
I would never in a million years use MBTI to hire anyone.

If you are intuitive, trust it.
I always have, and I always will.
It has served me well.

If you were to look at this forum as a forest,
and all the individual threads as trees,
it takes seconds to see the big picture.
I said it two years ago and I will say it again:
MBTI is used as a weapon.

It is derisive and divisive.

 

[Edgar]

You are maybe of the opinion that psychology is not a science? MBTI is a personality psychology theory, and can be evaluated by scientific standards, and it doesn't fare very well.

There is "hard science" and there is "soft science".

If you put psychology to the same standards as math and physics, the whole field is likely to be classified as bunk.

But being a "science-fascist" when it comes to fields like human behavior is not a reasonable way to go about it, especially when the scientific community is still in the dark (for the most part) on how the human brain works.

The ancient Greeks had detailed astronomical charts that were used for accurate navigation, but they speculated that the stars were holes in the heavens from which the light escaped. Just because they were wrong about what stars were, doesn't mean that their knowledge of the stars' movements was useless.

Same thing with Myers Briggs. It does not give you an accurate scientific justifications why one type behaves differently from another. But in my experience it has been an extremely useful tool when dealing with people and explaining their behavior. I will go as far as saying that it is the most useful knowledge that I have obtained in my entire life.

Typology is a science in it's infancy (even though it has been talked about in one way or another for millenia), and there will be plenty of theories and original assessments that will be proven ineffective and will be discarded as a whole or replaced by more effective methods. I do not follow the "cognitive functions" part of the Myers Briggs. I've had people argue with me that since I dismiss the cognitive function part of the theory, which is (according to some) is an "essential part of the Jungian typology", then I discount the whole MBTI as a valid theory. That argument... is idiotic. David Kiersey established a system that avoids dealing with cognitive functions that I find to be a lot more effective than some of the original theories of Myers Briggs. And I'm sure down the road, someone will propose a theory that improves on the original works of Kiersey himself.

But in conclusion, I just want to say that there are two types of people that show up on MBTI boards and grandiosely announce that MBTI is a "scam" or "no different from astrology": scientific fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything that cannot be quantified by currently known scientific methods, and attention whores, who say things that are most likely to generate a controversy given the present crowd. And maybe it's just me, but I never got the impression that Victor is a science-type-of-guy.

 

[Mole]

But in my experience it has been an extremely useful tool when dealing with people and explaining their behavior. I will go as far as saying that it is the most useful knowledge that I have obtained in my entire life.

Yes, MBTI is self validating.

And that is the problem with delusions - they are self validating.

 

[Splittet]

There is "hard science" and there is "soft science".

If you put psychology to the same standards as math and physics, the whole field is likely to be classified as bunk.

But being a "science-fascist" when it comes to fields like human behavior is not a reasonable way to go about it, especially when the scientific community is still in the dark (for the most part) on how the human brain works.

The ancient Greeks had detailed astronomical charts that were used for accurate navigation, but they speculated that the stars were holes in the heavens from which the light escaped. Just because they were wrong about what stars were, doesn't mean that their knowledge of the stars' movements was useless.

Same thing with Myers Briggs. It does not give you an accurate scientific justifications why one type behaves differently from another. But in my experience it has been an extremely useful tool when dealing with people and explaining their behavior. I will go as far as saying that it is the most useful knowledge that I have obtained in my entire life.

Typology is a science in it's infancy (even though it has been talked about in one way or another for millenia), and there will be plenty of theories and original assessments that will be proven ineffective and will be discarded as a whole or replaced by more effective methods. I do not follow the "cognitive functions" part of the Myers Briggs. I've had people argue with me that since I dismiss the cognitive function part of the theory, which is (according to some) is an "essential part of the Jungian typology", then I discount the whole MBTI as a valid theory. That argument... is idiotic. David Kiersey established a system that avoids dealing with cognitive functions that I find to be a lot more effective than some of the original theories of Myers Briggs. And I'm sure down the road, someone will propose a theory that improves on the original works of Kiersey himself.

But in conclusion, I just want to say that there are two types of people that show up on MBTI boards and grandiosely announce that MBTI is a "scam" or "no different from astrology": scientific fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything that cannot be quantified by currently known scientific methods, and attention whores, who say things that are most likely to generate a controversy given the present crowd. And maybe it's just me, but I never got the impression that Victor is a science-type-of-guy.

And what do you know about the field of psychology? As far as methods goes, the experiment is extremely important in psychology. Modern psychology is not psychoanalysis, it is empirically driven, and I don't think it's comparable to other social sciences. It is very much comparable to medicine, though.

MBTI is a joke of a theory and has pretty much been discarded.

 

[Edgar]

And what do you know about the field of psychology? As far as methods goes, the experiment is extremely important in psychology. Modern psychology is not psychoanalysis, it is empirically driven, and I don't think it's comparable to other social sciences. It is very much comparable to medicine, though.

Are we talking about the difference between psychiatry and psychology? And/or are we talking about the difference "negative" psychology and "positive" psychology (i.e. the difference between the study of mental diseases/chemical imbalances and the study of normal human behavior)?

I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

MBTI is a joke of a theory and has pretty much been discarded.

Honestly, I do not care too much that somebody somewhere thinks that an effective method that I use is "a joke".

 

[Splittet]

Are we talking about the difference between psychiatry and psychology? And/or are we talking about the difference "negative" psychology and "positive" psychology (i.e. the difference between the study of mental diseases/chemical imbalances and the study of normal human behavior)?

I just want to make sure we are on the same page here.

I am talking about psychology. That being said, there is something known as biological psychology as well.

Honestly, I do not care too much that somebody somewhere thinks that an effective method that I use is "a joke".

I am sure people who believe in astrology will say similar things... However, things like confirmation bias makes scientific research very necessary in order to evaluate such theories. MBTI can to a certain degree be used for such purposes, but Big Five is clearly better and more complete.

You also remind me of the overconfidence phenomenon... It seems like many intuitives seem to believe they have almost magical abilites of intuition, and in labeling themselves as intuitives, they seem to only exhibit this phenomenon more... Show some humility!

 

[Edgar]

Things like confirmation bias makes scientific research very necessary in order to evaluate such theories. MBTI can to a certain degree be used for such purposes, but Big Five is clearly better and more complete.

I have looked into Big 5 very briefly and did not find it to be as effective as MBTI for my purposes. Perhaps I will give it another try some time later.

I aware of what "confirmation bias" entails, but if that's the case with me and my use of MBTI, then I must have been extremely lucky for the last 7 or so years with the useful results that I received from MBTI.

I shall let you know if my luck changes.